Scouter99

If that worked, then run with it, but I agreed with your initial conclusion that you haven't got any good option except to give it to him. The Guide to Advancement is clear that to deny him credit, you must have sat him down months ago, told him the problems, and given him a clear path to success. (This isn't an endorsement of the policy, it's simply how it is.) You say you're 4 months in; If you do a 6-month term, and if I were you, your meeting of 6/18 is your "intervention" and the next 2 months are his chance to make good or else not get credit come August.

The problem with the argument that modern conveniences keep boys at home, is that we know from membership numbers that at the same time that TV, air conditioning, suburban life and all its comforts were exploding, so was BSA membership. A/C, shag carpet, arcade halls, and TV didn't keep boys at home in 1965, we can't assume that's what keeps them home today. In fact, as Rush fans know all too well, it may be the case that suburban life actually pushes boys right into our arms (nerd time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu9Ycq64Gy4) because it denies their nature. But, perhaps the growth in m

BSA "lost" its left wing because the ACLU went on the offensive and removed scouting units from schools, military bases, housing projects, and any other public institution. Whine to them about the pigeonholed BSA. When you were a kid, BSA's national campaign was "Onward . . . For God and Country!" And, just as is true today, the depth to which that effected your personal experience depended upon how much attention your troop paid to that. You don't remember any of the adult politics because you were a kid.

My first rappeling trip was a real cliff. My knee buckled 5 feet down, I hit the rock hard, scrambled back up and I've never tried again. If I'm a priss, so be it, hahahaha. I remember the experience fondly, but it's not one I'm interested in having twice.

I think it depends on the troop's situation; our troop covers gear and other costs with monthly dues, so we don't do a lot of fundraising. The boys who sell popcorn or camp cards get the money in their ISA, and sometimes we sell burgers at a fair for the troop treasury. In years where we need a lot of money for a specific purchase (new trailer or new tents etc) we ask the PLC to determine a percentage of popcorn that will go to the troop, and the troop supports the sale to a greater extent. So, if we were constantly fundraising and the troop really put a lot of work into the sales, then

Yeah, we're victims of our panache

Take a deep breath, innnnnnnnnn . . . . . . . oooouuuuut. Relative to my positive experience in my troop, some of the stories on this forum are so far out and negative that I sometimes wonder if they could be real. Hyperbole, it's a literary device. To answer your next question (extrapolating on your blown gasket), no, I don't actually believe I live in an episode of Leave it to Beaver.

Well, excuse me for having a question. They "might" do a lot of things, and I haven't said they don't, but what do you think the odds are that in 10 years every Webelos crossover to our troop had an individual Scoutmaster Conference with another troop he had no intention of joining, and never with us? I put it between zip-o and unlikely. Everyone else, thanks for your input/advice. I mainly wondered what the perspective is on those requirements. We generally only do one event for Webs, it looks like we can help those DLs be more honest if we offer more opportunities and a greater varie

Almost never. When I read some of these threads I consider three possibilities: that my troop exists in a Leave-it-to-Beaver parallel plane, that your troops exist in a Twilight Zone, or that there are a lot of exaggerations or lies going around here. Maybe we just have a very mature troop in terms of live-and-let-live. The troop used to award 5 or 6 God & Country awards every year through the mid-90s, but we've had several kids who don't hide their atheism, too. Our youth Chaplain's Aide prays at the end of every meeting without mentioning Jesus, but we have no adult Chaplain. The las

I'm sure that the county officials who issued a permit to destroy habitat will get right on top of that.

That explanation doesn't seem to flush with BSA's direct service units in plenty of foreign countries.

Settle down. Once again: The camp applied for and received a permit to remove 48 trees that were damaged by a wildfire. The same county that cited the camp in 1989 also permitted the camp to cut a limited number of fire-damaged trees. That qualifies as "clear cutting" only in your hyperbolic emotionally-charged world. They didn't even cut all 48 down, they cut down 38. The majority were cut while the permit was valid, one was not. In terms of the fern, it doesn't matter whether the same tree was cut down in 2010 or 2008.

I dug deeper based on your result; found a couple of papers buried on page 8 of results. His only contributions to research papers are counting birds and other fieldwork, which isn't really anything. Relative, indeed. I'm simply saying the man may be a really knowledgeable person and gung-ho, but counting birds and butterflies doesn't make a person a "noted environmentalist." It makes a person a bird-counter. I've been an extra in movies, I'm not a "noted actor." Kuska is a hobbyist. I don't appreciate being misled when someone is asking me to "force change." Anyway, none of us has

What annoys me about these discussions is the erroneous use of "BSA." "Boy Scouts of America" didn't cut down trees and screw with the endangered fern, the Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council's two predecessor councils did. BSA didn't revoke this guy's membership, Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council did. The old growth trees they cut were cut with a permit, only "some" after it had expired (one in 2010 out of 38 total), and while they should not have done it, cutting them before or after the permit expired doesn't change the fact that the county had no problem with them being cut. So, too, the

The LA Times hasn't got an axe to grind with the ASA.

If it wasn't made perfectly, crystal clear that they're loaners at the beginning of the year, lesson learned, and next year you'll make sure you do. If it was, as Schiff said, it's time for a call to the parents to the effect that you're very glad the boys had such a great time that they want to keep their neckerchiefs, but you need $7 to replace them.

Meh. He met the requirements for Life, he's going to meet the requirements for Eagle, he just took a break in between. Since your troop has no clear activity policy, he didn't do anything wrong. I wouldn't like it either, but it's better that he came back and wants to do it than that he never did.

I was looking at the Arrow of Light requirements for giggles just now, and I came up with a question regarding requirements 4 and 6, because as far as I can tell no Webelos that's joined our troop anytime lately has met them. Req 4 requires the boy to participate in a den visit to both and troop meeting and "Boy Scout-oriented outdoor activity." For years, we've invited Webelos to our sports center lock-in. Some years, we invite them to our summer beach trip, which is in a cabin. If it were me, I wouldn't fuss over the cabin trip, but a lock-in clearly isn't an outdoor activity. No Cub leade

The issue here is the nature of the requirement: "a. Prepare a budget reflecting your expected income, expenses, and savings." That is forethought/forecasting/budgeting. The log then compares his budget (expectations) with reality--thus the two-part nature of the requirement in its use of the words "budget" and "actual." If he only presented a log/statements, then he didn't do any budgeting. The point is instilling financial responsibility--looking at his statement once a month and saying "gee, I'm out of money" or "golly, I've got $500" isn't budgeting.

I'd recommend a sketchbook from your local art supply store; that's what I use.

You stick a man in a uniform and suddenly he becomes a wellspring of regulations that no one else seems to ever have heard of.

Agreed. We haven't gone to summer camp in-council in decades. No one has ever been nasty about it, but it has come up a lot in the past few years. I simply reply that we do support the council: We go to camporees, and we go to winter camp, and we beat our FoS goal every year.

As a society we've gotten beyond the point that people can be sensible about nudity; yes, if you suggested that boys pair off you'd immediately be branded a pervert. Let them keep their modesty and risk Lyme Disease. As for yourself, this article contains some preventative measures on page 2: http://www.motherearthnews.com/natur...#axzz2Vsj8iKvg

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway. It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive. It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trou

All of those are religions. At the time Mr. Wise's troubles began he was simply an atheist without any g/God or religion, as he has explicitly written in his testimonial (now linked above). He also saw, read, and had misgivings about the DRP, but he signed on anyway. It may be stupid, but then again how stupid does anyone have to be to push it. You don't get honey by kicking the beehive. It's perfectly clear from the context of the conversation: Rick claimed that Wise was in "the same position" as atheistic Unitarians as if perhaps it was his Unitarianism which caused him trou